Santosh Rai vs State
2016 Latest Caselaw 1719 Del

$-R-33A
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                                     DECIDED ON : 2nd MARCH, 2016

+                           CRL.A.66/2014

      SANTOSH RAI                                           ..... Appellant

                            Through :    None.


                            versus

      STATE                                                 ..... Respondent

                            Through :    Mr.Amit Gupta, APP.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.P.GARG

S.P.Garg, J. (Oral)

1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant -

Santosh Rai to impugn a judgment dated 18.09.2013 of learned Addl.

Sessions Judge in Sessions Case No.52/13 arising out of FIR No. 120/13

PS Vijay Vihar by which he was convicted under Section 8 of POCSO

Act. By an order dated 20.09.2013, he was awarded RI for three years

under Section 8 of POCSO.

2. Allegations against the appellant as reflected in the charge-

sheet were that on 05.03.2013 at about 07.00 p.m. in front of House No.L-

1/64, Budh Vihar Phase-I, Delhi, he sexually assaulted the prosecutrix 'X'

(changed name), aged around 7 years. The prosecution examined eight

witnesses to substantiate its case. In 313 Cr.P.C. statement, the appellant

pleaded false implication. The trial resulted in his conviction as aforesaid.

3. The appellant preferred the instant appeal before this Court

on 20.01.2014. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 05.01.2016,

none appeared on behalf of the appellant to address arguments. Notice

was ordered to be issued to Mr.Arabinda Nayak, Advocate, who

represented the appellant on the previous dates of hearing. Production

warrants were issued for the appellant's appearance before this Court.

4. Report bearing No.F.3/SCJ-3/AS(CT)/2016/216 dated

30.01.2016 has been received from the Superintendent, Central Jail No.3,

Tihar, New Delhi, to the effect that the appellant has already been released

from jail on 08.09.2015 after completion of sentence.

5. Since the appellant has served out the sentence awarded to

him and has deposited the fine, it appears that for that reason, he has not

contacted the counsel or the Court to get the appeal decided on merits.

The appeal has thus become infructuous and is disposed of as such. It is,

however, made clear that if the appellant appears within a reasonable time

for disposal of appeal on merits, his request will be considered.

6. Trial Court record be sent back immediately with the copy of

the order. A copy of the order be sent to the Superintendent Jail for

information.

(S.P.GARG) JUDGE MARCH 02, 2016 / tr